On Monday I had arrived at Woolwich County Court by 9.00am and then underwent a very simple induction procedure. I then sat in the Jurors’ Lounge until I was called down to a court with fifteen other jurors. Twelve were selected at random and then sat in the jury box before being sworn in one at a time. I was not amongst the selected jurors, and I returned to the Lounge in time for lunch.
Later that day I was called down to a different court, and this time I was selected and became Juror No. 11 for the duration of the trial. Once we were sworn in, the judge gave us a brief outline of the nature of the trial (the charges and its likely duration) and the prosecution then read out the names of the witnesses that were going to be called so that if we recognised anyone, we could notify the judge. The prosecution and defence barristers made their opening remarks, after which we were dismissed for the rest of the day.
On Tuesday we were late starting as legal arguments were taking place in the courtroom. When we finally went to the courtroom, the prosecution barrister began presenting his case. A statement of facts that had been agreed by both the prosecution and the defence was then read out, and then the prosecution called their witnesses. These were a detective inspector and a forensic expert. The defence barrister did not cross-examine either of the prosecution witnesses and at that point we were dismissed for the day.
Proceedings started at just after 10.00am on Wednesday, and began with a second charge being added to the indictment. Once the nature of this charge was explained to us, the defendant going into the witness box. He was then questioned at length by his barrister, after which he was cross-examined by the prosecutor. With interruptions and breaks, this took up most of the day, and there was only just sufficient time left for the prosecuting barrister to sum up the case against the defendant before we were sent home.
On Thursday morning the defence barrister made his summing up remarks, after which the judge reiterated the role of the jury and summarised the relevant law and evidence that had been presented. He did this in a very balanced way, emphasising that we were the abiturs of the truth. The jury bailiff was then sworn in and escorted us to the jury room so that we could begin our deliberations. These lasted over lunch, and by 2.30pm we had come to a verdict. We trooped back to the court, where our foreperson delivered our verdicts on the two charges. ... which was guilty on both counts. We were then thanked by the judge and sent back to the Jurors’ Lounge after the defendant’s previous convictions were read out and a date set for the sentencing to take place.
Once back in the Lounge, the jury manager collected in our expense claim forms … and then told us that we would not be needed for the rest of our expected fortnight of jury service as Easter was approaching and they had sufficient jurors to cover the trials that were already booked in.
Yipee! My jury service was over ... and it is unlikely that I will be called upon again before I reach the upper age limit.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteGlad for you that your Jury Service went well and rather quickly- good to get it all done and out of the way- hope your Radiotherapy turns out well for you. Regards. KEV.
Kev Robertson (Kev),
DeleteAs we had planned around me doing jury service until Easter, Sue and I now have the opportunity to do several things that we had planned to do after Easter. This will make it easier to arrange my radiotherapy.
All the best,
Bob
That seems fairly painless and straightforward. My sister was a juror for an insurance claim case. She said the process was interesting but the lawyers went into excruciating detail over every niggling bit. She soldiered on though through a few days of hearing only to find they had settled out of court. So while it was an educational experience for her, it was ultimately a delaying tactic for one side to get what they wanted.
ReplyDeleteAt least your treatments won't be delayed and you can have that public service as a feather in your cap.
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteI understand from one of my fellow jurors that they had been allocated to a trial last week, and after a day of listening to some complex evidence, the trial was stopped and rescheduled and the jury dismissed when one of the lawyers became ill with COVID and could not proceed.
I must admit that at one point we all expected that the defendant in our trial was going to change his plea to guilty … but he didn’t. If he had, he would have saved time, money, and would have qualified for a shorter sentence. (The judge indicated that the defendant was going to be sentenced in five weeks time and could expect a minimum sentence of three years.)
I can now look forward to starting my radiotherapy …
All the best,
Bob
Did you have to wear a silly wig?
ReplyDeleteDick Bryant,
DeleteThe rumours that I wear a wig or toupee are greatly exaggerated!
(In the UK, lawyers wear a ‘Tie Wig' in court. If they take it off during a trial, they immediately become ‘invisible’ to the judge. The exception are Sikh barristers who are allowed to wear their turban instead of a wig. These wigs - which are also known as perruques - were fashionable in the 1700s and have two/three rows of horizontal curls along the sides and back of the wig, This style of wig was adopted by barristers and has stayed pretty much the same ever since although the latest design was standardised in 1922.)
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
DeleteThe style of the modern barrister's wig is very similar to the way British soldiers were required to tie, curl and powder their hair (with flour in the case of private soldiers; in John Shipp's memoirs of service in the 1790s he recalls waking up to find a rat sucking his hair!) for parade until 1808. Although Colonel Lake of the 29th Foot (later the Worcestershire Regiment) insisted on continuing to wear his hair in the old style until he was killed in the battle of Rolica at the start of the Peninsular War. I think the wig reflects the way gentlemen wore their own hair on formal occasions in the late 18th century. whereas the judges' longer wigs were the fashion of an earlier period, when men kept their hair cropped or shaved and wore wigs in public.
Good to read you are released from jury service and can get back to wargaming matters!
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteI knew that British soldiers and sailors wore their hair in a queue, but wasn’t sure when the requirement to do so was removed.
The design of the full bottom wig worn by senior judges dates back to the William and Mary era, as does much of the current judicial ‘uniform’. Having seen the cost, I can see why many young barristers buy second-hand wigs when starting out.
The break has given me time to think about a couple of ideas I want to develop over the next year or so. Had I been doing a second week of jury service, I’d already decided to take my laptop with me so that I could do some writing.
All the best,
Bob
Sounds like it went about as well as can be expected, Bob. Civic Duty done - good for you.
ReplyDeleteDavid in Suffolk,
DeleteDespite all the interruptions, the trial was very interesting and I enjoyed the experience. That said, I hope that I don’t get called upon again in the near future.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteWell, that was short and sweet. I've served on a jury myself - a week long trial. I found the process interesting, and am something of a fan of the system. That it can interrupt one's 'normal life' in annoying ways, I do believe that if we want a jury system, that is the price we pay. Seems reasonable to me!
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteThe whole experience was more interesting than I hoped.
I am a great fan of the jury system and saw my jury service a civic duty. I think that if I want to have a justice system that works for the benefit of all of society, then I must be willing to give up my time to help make it work.
All the best,
Bob
Interesting to get a glimpse into your system.
ReplyDeleteI was called up for jury duty 13-14 years ago. I went in the first day, and was selected to possibly become a jury member.
You seem to have just been assigned a case.
I went thru a process called voir dire where the lawyers on both sides ask questions of a larger pool of jurors and then dismiss a number of those they believe may be prejudicial to their side of the case. The rest become the jury. I was dismissed - it was a car accident lawsuit and I had recently been injured in a car accident. Not sure who had what issue with me.
After that, for the next two weeks I called a number after 5pm to find out if I needed to come into the courthouse the next day, or call again the next day at 11am to see if I had to be there that afternoon. I was not asked to come back in. Also, I believe we were only entitled to $10 a day for the cost of lunch - no other expenses were reimbursed (parking was free at the courthouse).
Congrats on getting thru your civic duty.
Stu Rat,
DeleteAccording to the Crown Prosecution Service (the English equivalent of the District Attorney in the US):
The general principles are:
1. Members of a jury should be selected at random from the panel, subject to any rule of law as to right of challenge.
2. The Juries Act 1974 identifies those classes of person who alone are disqualified from or ineligible for service on a jury. No other class of persons may be treated as disqualified or ineligible.
3. The correct way for the Crown to seek to exclude a member of the panel from sitting as a juror is by the exercise in open court of the right to request a stand by or challenge for cause.
4. The procedure for objecting to potential jurors is contained in the Criminal Procedure Rules 25.8 and the prosecution must announce the exercise of its right before the juror completes the oath or affirmation.
In other words, it is very difficult for either the prosecution or the defence to object to a particular juror. This means that the defendant's case is decided by a jury of his peers and not a group that has been selected by the lawyers because they think that the juror will favour their slant on the case.
In some very high-profile cases, the judge may ask the potential jurors if they have - for example - read, listened to, or watched any pre-trial media coverage about the case, and in certain circumstances he might rule that the potential juror is ineligible to hear that particular trial.
This means that English juries are probably more representative of the population as a whole than may be the case in other places. On the jury I was on their was a mixture of ages, ethnic origins, religious beliefs, and genders. In fact, I would say that when looking at my fellow jurors I saw a very good cross-section of London's population.
All the best,
Bob
And there was much rejoicing! It's always nice to get a break from an unpleasant task. Glad you can now return to your " normal " life....
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteIt wasn’t so much unpleasant as tedious in parts. The actual trial was very interesting, and involved something that I knew quite a bit about. What was good was that I didn’t have to do the second week.
All the best,
Bob